Climategate

Many of you may have heard about the leaked emails out of the Climate Research Unit at the University East Anglia in Britain. the CRU is supposedly the premiere research organization in the world when it comes to climate change, and the group that supplied two of the four sets of data that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used for its report. Its data and perspective are described as “key to setting environmental agenda” for the world and turns out these climate scientists were doing exactly the same things the evolutionists tend to do: making the data fit how they want it to fit, and in some cases even making the data up.

One of the things legitimate scientific researchers are supposed to do is give other researchers free access to the data they have collected to so they may come to the same conclusions, generally by repeating the experiment or process. In this case the CRU not only refused for years to allow others to examine their original data it now turns out that they managed to “lose” the original data… these would be temperatures they took over the years from various locations, information gleaned from tree ring studies and other elements they combined to “reconstruct” past temperature profiles. (that last immediately begins to sound fishy to me. Once people start trying to reconstruct something as ephemeral as specific temperatures of the past, my skeptic lights go on)

In any case, they took the temperatures they had gathered, put them through a sequence of computer programs (also top-secret so others could not confirm) to “adjust” the temperatures to make up for various unspecified factors in the collection process and, oh my! they came up with a tidy rise in global temperatures over the last 150 years. Then they managed to ditch original readings from which they derived their adjusted temps.

They’d like people to believe it was all an accident, it was way back in the 80s when global warming wasn’t an issue, and maybe some would believe that if it weren’t for the emails wherein heretofore respected AGW (that’s Anthropocentric Global Warming) scientists told each other to get rid of the data, moaned about how hard it was to get their vaunted programs to spit out the right conclusions, and discussed how they might keep their opposition from ever publishing in legitimate journals, thus providing themselves with the ability to marginalize their findings by pointing out they’d never been published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal.

These people are the main scientists involved in the UN study (IPCC mentioned above) that resulted in the alarmist warning that governments had better do something about this approaching disaster or mankind will destroy the earth. The same study that’s generated the upcoming conference in Copenhagen which our President is set to attend in just a few days.

Even Global Warming advocates are horrified and shocked that their heros, the scientists they respected and believed have pretty much violated every research protocol in the book. They want the head of the CRU to step down and last I heard he was going to. But even so, there are others who tsk and sweep it all under the rug. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, (whose degrees are in Industrial Engineering and Economics, not a climate science) told the UK’s Guardian, “The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report.” So he’s just pretending none of it happened. (article)

That just blows me away. I don’t know what universe these people live in, but it’s not the same as mine. Or maybe it is, and the truth is that they don’t care if they lie, don’t care, really, if anyone believes them, they just want to continue on with their plans until they have the power they are seeking. (Pachauri also thinks “Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed.”) (article)

I’ve said it before, and this new development makes it clearer than ever that the whole thing is a hoax. It’s all wishful thinking, self-delusion, corruption, deceit, arrogance, and clearly, I think, part of the push toward one world government.

The interesting thing, as I mentioned earlier, is how closely the methods and comments and goals of the scientists are so similar to those I quoted as coming from evolutionists not too long ago. The same approach of deciding what the truth is, then setting out to “prove” it.

I find it also interesting that in both cases, God is shoved aside, deliberately, consciously and in some cases openly, excluded from the picture. Evolutionists are searching for a rational explanation for everything that does not include God or any sort of supernatural creative event. At the other end of the spectrum, Global warming alarmists say God cannot protect His creation and they are committed to proving that global disaster which only man can avert, is on the way.

And amazingly a lot of people believe both camps.

A quote from The Black Swan comes to mind (actually a lot of concepts do, but I’ll confine myself to one.)

“I am most often irritated by those who attack the bishop but someone fall for the securities analyst — those who exercise their skepticism against religion but not against economists, social scientists, and phony statisticians.[And here I would add, global warming scientists] Using confirmation bias, these people will tell you that religion was horrible for mankind by counting deaths from the Inquisition and various religious wars. But they will not show you how many people were killed by nationalism, social science, and political theory under Stalinism or during the Vietnam War…”

How weird to live in a world where people would rather trust fallible men spouting theories that the least bit of common sense would recognize as ridiculous, than God. How weird that these same people should take their own views a step further and describe them in religious terms. As happened last Monday as reported on Fox News by George Russell: “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion ‘as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,’ according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog.”

This is not just an issue with the scientists and politicians. When I was working for a hospital in southern California, the administration made us (all employees) go through a training based on the Iceberg Manifesto and the book “Our Iceberg is Melting” (http://www.ouricebergismelting.com/) If you look at the process this manifesto promotes, it’s exactly what has been followed by the “climate change” leaders. It is no coincidence that the same concepts and agendas are being implemented and promoted in hospitals, schools, businesses, and even Christian churches.

The US constitution is one thing that has stalled their progress, and they are slowly chipping away at that. If the people in our nation are willing to give up their freedom for supposed security, they will have neither (as stated by Ben Franklin).

If we don’t understand and stand on Truth, the Word of God, we will be deceived and fall for just about anything… anything that tickles that old sin nature.

I find it interesting that “global warming” has subtly become “climate change.”

I suspect this is the same tactic that was used when the gay rights movement shifted from “the right to choose” mantra to the “we were born this way so it’s a matter of civil rights” ploy.

The feminist movement did it too, first convincing people that a fetus was not a life, then changing to a “her body, her right” position when the former was no longer tenable.

My point is, these scientists knew they didn’t have the research to prove global warming, so they have already laid the groundwork for further dire warnings regardless of how true or false their initial premise was. (“Premise” is too weak–assertion, is better).

Not only that, they’re having a hard time getting people worried about Global “Warming” when peoples’ subjective experience is — especially this year — soundly in the camp of global cooling. Speaking of which, I well recall when cooling was the scare of the climate alarmists. Back in the 70s the world was allegedly going to move into a new ice age if we didn’t do something… (I don’t recall what we were supposed to do; I do recall that it snowed in Tucson my first semester of college!)